Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Jul 2012 11:52 UTC
Legal "The nation's top patent court has stopped a lower court from throwing out four patents on financial software, used to sue a bank dealing in foreign currency exchanges. The controversial opinion, countered by a blistering dissent by one member of the three-judge panel, shows that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is in disarray about just what is patentable. An 'abstract idea' can't win a patent, but the judges on the court are in disagreement about just what that is." It seems that US judges are getting more and more vocal about the US Patent Mess. Interesting.
Permalink for comment 526851
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Proof
by kwan_e on Sun 15th Jul 2012 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Proof"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

So after an R&D lab spends $100 million developing and testing a new drug anyone is free to infringe their patents because the lab only licenses the patents and doesn't actually make a product?


If an R&D lab spends $100 million to develop a useless patent, then YES. If the lab has a reputation of developing useless patents, no company would license those patents because it would not protect them.

However, if the R&D lab's patents are useful, then infringement of those patents would cause business harm to the licensees, and they would sue the infringers. The lab would not suffer because they will still have the reputation of producing useful patents which actually do protect the licensee.

Just because someone spends a lot of money in research does not ENTITLE them to any reward just because they did "research". It has to prove to have real worth.

Reply Parent Score: 2